Complainant Makhan Masih through the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') has sought relief by way of issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite parties: i) to either repair his Scooter to make it fit and road-worthy or replace the same with a new one or to refund its cost with interest @ 18% PA besides ii) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for inflicting mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss etc and iii) also to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he on 24.04.2014 purchased one LML Scooter from the OP2 vendor duly manufactured by the OP1 manufacturers and since then has been observing the prescribed operational instructions of the OP. However, the complainant has been facing inconvenience on account of the troublesome functioning of the Scooter in question mainly by way of poor petrol average and stop-function on petrol-reserve level labeled as manufacturing defect and the same construed as an act of deficiency in service on the OP’s part, the present complaint was preferred with the desired relief, as prayed herein above.

3.       Upon notice, the OP1 Manufacturers and the OP2 Vendor filed their respective separate replies that somehow have been ‘similar’ as though not by default but by design. Both have disowned having ever made the claim of ‘petrol consumption’ of 77 km. per liter duly explaining the factors deciding upon the ‘optimum petrol consumption’. Further, the OP2 vendor has claimed having satisfactorily attended to the Scooter complaints as and when reported and the OP Service Engineer has duly conducted a trial-ride of 17 Kms to declare it fit and defect-free etc. Finally, the present complaint has been alleged to be not maintainable in the present form being without any merits since it has failed to set out any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part. Further, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint there being no cause of action accrued against the OPs and hence the present complaint need be dismissed in the interest of justice, with special costs.

4.       Both the parties have produced/filed their respective affidavits and other related documents in evidence to support their pleadings/objections on record and their learned counsels have duly put forth their respective arguments. We have carefully considered and perused all the available material while adjudicating the present complaint. The complainant has produced documents in evidence exhibited as: Ex.C1 to Ex.C8, including his affidavit duly deposing the allegations and other pleadings of the complaint. The OPs, in reciprocation, have produced their documents with exhibit numbers as: Ex.OP1/1, Ex.OP1/2 and ExOP2/1 to Ex.OP2/11 including the duly deposed Affidavits etc., the contents of the written reply and also the other objections/pleadings etc.

5.       We observe that the complaint comprises of two main issues/grievances namely: i) the Scooter’s petrol consumption has been much below the assured/ claimed average of 77 km. per liter and ii) the Scooter has been infected with some inherent manufacturing defect right from the date of its purchase and that persists till the date of the present complaint. However, we find that the complainant has failed to prove that the petrol consumption of the Scooter was ever assured or claimed as 77 km. per liter by the OP manufacturers/vendor and/or any of its agent/representative. A simple allegation on the basis of some alleged assurance of an average of 77 km. per liter shall not attract an adverse award under the Act. Regarding the issue of some inherent ‘manufacturing defect’ the same has neither been specifically and categorically pinpointed nor supported by any ‘subject expert’ to earn the entitlement of refund/replacement etc. Also, the minor routine defects and its subsequent satisfactory repairs do not qualify for the ultimate reward of refund/replacement etc. Further, it has been duly held on record vides the 5 nos. of mutually admitted job cards exhibited here as: Ex.OP2/3 to Ex.OP2/7 and one Inspection Report Ex.OP2/8 that ‘the scooter’ has been under the regular and satisfactory service duly provided by the OP2 vendor and also ousting the allegation of ‘deficiency in service’.

6.       In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint devoid of any preferable merit under the Act and thus ORDER for its DISMISSAL, with no orders as to its costs.     

7.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.  

                                                                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                 President      

ANNOUNCED:                              (G.B.S.Bhullar)                 (Jagdeep Kaur)

February 24, 2015.                                   Member                                     Member           

*MK*